While we have had the opportunity to discuss plagiarism on multiple occasions, it is rare in the Jewish world that a plagiarizer is caught and admits their mistake.  As such I wanted to discuss such an example. 

R. Yosef HaKohen Schwartz (1875-1944) was a veracious reader.  Many of his responsa are devoted to notes on newly printed seforim.  Indeed, the equally well-read bibliophile, R. Reuven Margoliyot, was in the habit of sending his new books for R. Schwartz's comment.  Needless to say, if one wished to pick a person's books to appropriate and remain undetected, it is probably not the best strategy to pick someone who reads much of what is published.  In this instance, however, that appears to be exactly what happened. 

One of R. Schwartz's books is devoted to yarhzeit customs, Moad Kol Hayi (Kisvarda, 1925).  It is a short book, which is made even shorter by the inclusion of a bunch of approbations, a eulogy, and a responsum.  While the book in and of itself is fairly unremarkable, what happened next is.  R. Tzvi Hirsch Friedling, who edited a Polish Torah Journal, Ha-Be'ar, published a work that was broader in scope than Schwartz's but also encompassed the same topic as Schwartz covered – yarhzeit customs.  Specifically, Friedling, some time after 1928 published Hayyim ha-Nitzchim a collection of sources related to funerary customs as well as yarhzeit.  Friedling had published similar likut seforim and, in part recycled some of the approbations he received on a different work, Kiyum ha-Olam, for Hayyim ha-Nitzchim, including an approbation from R. Abraham Isaac Kook. Indeed, we know that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim must have been published after 1928 as the approbations contain dates from 1928.  It is true that there is no date given on the title page, however, as should become apparent, the first edition of Friedling's book must have been published after 1928 and before 1936.

While Friedling readily admits that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim is not an original work, no where does he mention R. Schwartz or Schwartz's work on yahrzeit.  Although Schwartz is not mentioned, there is no doubt that the section of Friedling's book dealing with yarhzeit used Schwartz.  Indeed, as one would expect, Schwartz read Friedling's book and realized that Friedling had "borrowed" material from Schwartz.  In Schwartz's responsa, Va-Yitzbor Yosef, no. 50, Schwartz has a letter to R. Moshe Tzvi Landau discussing Landau's book Shulhan Melachim (Beregovo, 1931).  In his comments on Landau's book, Schwartz discusses  plagiarism in general and notes that he is a victim of plagiarism and specifically that Friedling had used his materials without attribution.  Schwartz writes: You should be aware that there are entire published books that were never written [by the alleged authors], that is, without changing anything except the title [people have plagiarized books] indeed I am not immune to this behavior as one Polish rabbi (and in the approbations he is refered to a Goan and a tzaddik! what a joke) who printed a book under the title "Hayyim ha-Nitzchim", however, it is all mine which he stole from my small, in size, but great in content book "Mo'ad Kol Hayi" which I spent many years gathering and collecting all the laws [that appear in the book], and now from the "well" [this is a play on the word be'er that subltly references Friedling's journal Ha-Be'er] the deer [a play on Friedling's name Tzvi] has drunk without my knowledge, and in doing so has destroyed a world, he [Friedling] failed to give me proper recognition, how terrible it is for a generation to have this happen in their time. יען כי גם ספרים שלמים קובעים בדפוס אשר לא דרו ולא ילדו, ובלי שינוי מעשה  אך בשינוי שם לבד, כאשר עשה אתי עמי רב א' מפולין (ומתארין אותו עוד בההסכמות לגאון וצדיק! אשר הוא לשחוק) כי הדפיס ס' בשם "חיים הנצחיים", וכלו שלי הוא גנוב אתו מספרי קטן הכמות ורב האיכות "מועד כל חי" אשר יגעתי בו הרבה שנים ללקט ולקבץ כל הדינים בזה, ועתה מבא"ר ההוא משקה הצבי שבור העדרים בבלי דעת, ומחריב העולם, ואת מקומי לא הערה, ואוי לדור שכך עלתה בימיו.
 

It seems that Friedling found out that R. Schwartz caught Friedling with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar and actually attempted to make amends.  In particular, I am aware of one copy of one edition of what one assumes is a reprint of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim that is at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University. In that copy, before the section discussing yahrzeit customs the following admission appears:To Admit and Reveal!Because most of the statements that appear in this work were gathered and collected from the work Mo'ad Kol Hayi which was written and published by the esteemed, erudite, and well-known Rabbi Yosef ha-Kohen Schwartz who lives in Grosswarden (and is the author of Tzafnat Panaech, Shu"t Genzei Yosef, and Hadrat Kodesh and previously edited the journal Va-Yelaket Yosef for twenty years).  And because of circumstances [beyond my control??] I forgot to mention this in the introduction of this work as I should have done, and when I publish this work a second time I will/have do so.  The Author  Now, although we don't know the exact date this edition with the admission was published, we do know that it, at the very least, must have been published after 1931 and probably after 1936.  This is so, as Friedling mentions three of Schwartz's other works, the last one, Hadrat Kodesh, was published in 1931 so this admission which makes mention of Hadrat Kodesh was written after that. It is also likely that this admission was published after the appearance of R. Schwartz's Va-Yitzbor Yosef where Friedling is exposed.  Va-Yitzbor Yosef was published in 1936 and therefore it is possible that this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim was published some time after that.  But, as with all the editions of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim we don't know for certain exactly when they were published. 

Be that as it may, we do have an example of a full admission of plagiarism, whether intentional or inadvertent based on this little know edition of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim.  In fact, as I mentioned I know of only one copy of this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim housed at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University and have never seen it in any other copies of the book. 

For more on Schwartz's biography, see Naftali ben-Menachem's article on Schwartz in Mi-Safrut Yisrael be-Ungariah pp. 330-70; Y. Y. Cohen, Hakmei Translivania, 237-40.  Both Friedling and Schwartz shared a few common facts.  They both edited journals and it appears that both were killed in the Holocaust.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Yair Rosenberg for sending me a scan of the above page, and for Mr. Menachem Butler for his help as well.   

A Note Regarding R. Menahem de Lonzano
by Jordan S. PenkowerI would like to call attention to the following points in reference to R. Menahem de Lonzano, as mentioned in Koreh HaDorot by R. David Conforte. (1) In his recent post on TSB, Eliezer Brodt, in his review of the new edition of Conforte's Koreh HaDorot (2008), made the following statement (in the second paragraph): R. Conforte was born in Salonika around 1617 and died sometime after 1678. Throughout his life he traveled to many places (including Eretz Yisroel), and in KH he describes his meetings with many great personalities, including R. Menachem Lonzano, author of Sheti Yadot,… This seems to be a "slip of the pen", for it assumes an impossibilty. Conforte was born in 1617 (or 1618) in Salonika, and Lonzano died before 1624 (apparently in Eretz Israel; he was buried there at the foot of the Mount of Olives). Thus, Conforte was still a young lad in Salonika when Lonzano died elsewhere (apparently in Eretz Israel). In short, these two scholars never met, and Conforte certainly does not mention any such meeting between them. In an interesting turn of events, these two scholars were, nevertheless, connected; for Conforte married Lonzano's granddaughter, the daughter of Lonzano's son, Adonikam. Conforte mentions his father-in-law (and the fact that he died young) in Koreh HaDorot, at the end of his entry on R. Menahem de Lonzano. (2) In his introduction to the new edition of Koreh HaDorot, p. 32, R. Bezalel Deblitzki lists as one of the manuscripts used by Conforte:      שבלי הלקט בכתיבת יד מהר"ם די לונזאנו    When one goes to verify this assumption, one finds, on p. 76 of the new edition, the following quote:   ומצאתי כתוב בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבלי הלקט מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"ל וז"ל = וזה לשונו At first glance, one could possibly understand this statement as R. Deblitzki did, i.e. that Lonzano copied the whole manuscript of Shibbolei HaLeket. Nevertheless, a closer look yields the following interpretation: Conforte is describing a manuscript (written by an anonymous scribe) which was in the posession of Lonzano. At the beginning of this manuscript Lonzano added a gloss (quoted here at length by Conforte) about the author of the work and his teachers. Lonzano also mentions in the gloss that Zedekiah HaRofeh (author of Shibbolei HaLeket) wrote another work (=volume two; in manuscript) and that he (Lonzano) owns a copy. Lonzano further makes an observation at the end of his gloss concerning the state of the work – that people later changed the order of the work, just as they did with Sefer Yerei'im. In short, the phraseומצאתי כתוב.. מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"לrefers only to the gloss of Lonzano – which was subsequently quoted at length by Conforte. The inserted phrase: בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבילי הלקט  simply informed the reader what were the contents of the manuscript (Shibbolei HaLeket, volume 1), and where the gloss was inserted (at the beginning of the manuscript). I later discovered that already HID"A (R. Hayyim David Azoulai) correctly interpreted this passage in Conforte's Koreh HaDorot, and understood that Lonzano possessed a manuscript copy of Shibbolei HaLeket. See Azoulai's remarks in Sheim HaGedolim, s.v. רבינו צדקיה ב"ר אברהם הרופא וב' ספרים אלו (=שבלי הלקט, על שני חלקיו) היו ביד מהר"ם די לונזאנו כמו שהביא דבריו בס' קורא הדורות דף כ"א ע"א ע"ש It should be noted that this phenomenon, of Lonzano adding glosses in books (manuscripts and printed) that he owned, can be documented in many other cases as well. 

Rabbis & History: A Review of the Koreh HaDorot, Ahavat Shalom ed. by Eliezer Brodt  This is the first post in what I hope to be a series on various attitudes towards studying history.  The prism through which we will examine this issue is that of the many works written by gedolim discussing history.  The subject of this post is a new edition of the classic work Koreh Hadoros (KH) by R. Dovid Conforte (printed recently by Ahavat Sholom).  After discussing the actual sefer and its author,  I will conclude with a few comments about this recently printed edition.   R. Conforte was born in Salonika around 1617 and died sometime after 1678. Throughout his life he traveled to many places (including Eretz Yisroel), and in KH he describes his meetings with many great personalities, including R. Menachem Lonzano, author of Sheti Yadot, and R. Hayyim Benevisti, author of the Keneset Hagedolah. As he enumerates throughout the book, R. Conforte studied with R. Moredcahi Kalai and many others (see, for example, pg. 163, 175, 176, 179; all page references are to the new edition).  At times he also emphasizes with whom and when he studied Kabalah (pg. 172-73), which he started to learn at the young age of seventeen (p. 150). He seemed to have authored a few other works, most of which are lost. Recently, a responsum of his was printed in the journal Yeshurun (vol. 7, pg. 55ff). [In that article, the authors write of a plan to collect all R. Conforte's torah as well as to reprint the KH]. In Sinai (28:279-295), R. Toledano published a manuscript called Zikhron Yerushalim about gravesites in Eretz Yisroel, which the author proves was written by R. Conforte.   The KH is one of the most famous historical works written by a talmid chacham and continues to be studied to this day. This sefer was printed a few times (once even under a mistaken name –  see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim, p. 240), and remains very popular amongst gedolim and scholars alike. Most notably, the Chida quotes this work extensively in all his seforim (as an aside, it's rather strange that his entry on R. Conforte in Shem Hagedolim is very small and uninformative). Indeed, when, many years ago, R. Meshulam Roth created a curriculum for his yeshiva, he included the Koreh Hadoros as an essential sefer for his talmidim to read (among other interesting things in the program; see Mivasar Ezra, pg. 176, and Mivasar Vomer, pg. 119); R. Meir Shapira even asked R. Roth if he could use the latter's curriculum for Yeshivat Chachemei Lublin (see Mivasar Ezra, pg. 172).  Even today scholars use this work extensively; check the index of almost any of the works of Meir Benayhu and one can see how often he quotes the KH.    KH begins with the era of the Rabbonan Savorei ("Saboraim"), continues with the geonic period and the rishonim, and ends with R. Confotre's own generation, in total covering a period of a few hundred years. The idea of this work is to list the different gedolim from each period and include basic information about them, such as when they were born and died, with whom they stiudied, and what they wrote. At times the KH includes a more lengthy entry on a specific person. Much of this information, especially that of R. Conforte's own period, is very important,  as we have no other such sources for it.  Much of the other material is taken from other classic "history" works, as R. Conforte himself notes (e.g. Igerres R. Shreriah Goan, Sefer Hakablah l'Ha'Ra'avad, Sahlsheles Hakablah, and Sefer Yuchsin, all of which will hopefully be subjects of their own posts in the future); yet, though R. Conforte uses these works extensively, he will at times disagree with these works. One work which, for some unknown reason, R. Conforte does not use, and which R. D. Kassel already pointed out, is the Zemach Dovid, obvious from the fact that the section on Askenaz achronim is quite weak. Finally, throughout the sefer he quotes many interesting things he heard from purportedly reliable sources, rare seforim, and manuscripts which he saw. In the recent Ahavat Sholom edition, they discuss about fifty such works which R. Conforte mentions. Indeed, Koreh HaDoros shows an incredible bikiyut in shas, rishonim, and achronim (and all of this in the pre-Bar-Ilan days!).   In 1842, D. Kassel printed an annotated version of KH. Though he included many short notes on various points in the sefer, his additions included nothing extensive. Among the reasons Kassel provides for this is that he was told Leopold Zunz was working on his own edition.  However, Zunz never ended up publishing his own edition and, as such, Kassel's edition, which still left room for much work, became the standard edition. More recently, this sefer was reprinted by Ahavat Sholom. One of the benefits of the Ahavat Shalom edition is that it collects all the Chida's comments on the sefer (scattered throughout his writings) and prints it here in the proper places. The truth is that Kassel already references when and where the Chida discusses particular points in KH; still, the Kassel edition only includes citations to the Chida's works without reproducing what the Chida says.  The Ahavat Shalom edition, on the other hand, includes the full text of the Chida's relevant comments. To be sure, even a cursory Bar-Ilan project search shows that the Ahavat Shalom edition missed a few of the Chida's comments, and I am sure that this is true of the many other seforim of the Chida not included the in the Bar-Ilan database.  Another plus of their edition are the indexes, which are very extensive- over a hundred pages (which include every time any sefer or name is mentioned)! Finally, the edition also has a retyped set,  making the sefer  more readable and clearly marking paragraph and topic breaks. They were also kind enough to reference pages numbers of the first edition, a useflul tool in tracking down quotes from the original edition. Another positive aspect of this edition is a very thoroughly researched introduction about the author and the sefer. The Ahavat Shalom printing includes an entire section devoted to many of the manuscripts and seforim that R. Conforte may have seen (discussing what happened with the seforim if they were printed since then, etc.). Just to point out some additions to their discussion: The KH mentions a sefer from R. Yisroel Nigra which is a collection of his derashos called Mikveh Yisroel. They write (p. 35) that it exists in many manuscripts and that one derasha was printed already in Yeshrun (10:134). The truth is that this manuscript was printed partially in the early 1900s, but, more recently, S. Regev printed all the dershos (Bar Ilan Press, 2004) in a critical edition (675 pgs.), including an excellent introduction to the work Interestingly, R. Y. Goldhaver seems not to have been aware of this edition as he only quotes the manuscript (see his Minhaghei Hakehilos, 1:287). Another sefer that the KH mentions, also authored by R. Yisroel Nigra, is Sheris Yisroel, which is a collection of Nigra's songs. In the Ahavat Sholom introduction they mention that it exists in manuscript. It is interesting to note that the manuscript was in the collection of R. Aryeh Lipshiz, as mentioned in his Avos Atrah Lebanim (p. 109).                                                                                                             The main weakness of this new edition are the notes. Aside for putting in all the comments of the Chida taken from Shem Hagedolim, there is almost nothing as far as notes go. On the one hand, one could argue that Ahavat Shalom did not feel it is necessary to put in more notes than they did. However, in a recent issue of a journal called Mikabsel (# 32) – published by Ahavat Shalom – the editors include the introduction to KH, including the history of the author and a sampling of over fifty notes on various topics in the sefer. Even these notes, too, could have been more comprehensive, they are still very useful. For some odd reason, most of these notes were not included in the published edition of KH. In sum, Ahavat Sholom should be thanked for printing an important sefer which has not been around for some time; nevertheless, a critical edition is definetely still needed and eagerly awaited.  I would just like to give a list of some of the many points and discussions which R. Conforte brings up in the sefer. As previously mentioned, he deals with the Geonic period, mostly basing himself on the earlier works available to him such as Iggerot R. Sherirah Gaon and Sefer Hakablah of the Ra'avad.     He records the famous puzzling statement about the death of R. Sherirah Goan that: ונתלה רב שרירא מידו אחת והוא כבן מאה שנה, ולא הוסרו מגאונות.   For a recent summary of the discussions of this statement and a new suggestion as to its interpretation, see R. Nosson Dovid Rabonvitz, Rishumot Teshuvos R. Sherirah Gaon, pp. 42-45.   Another one of the interesting things R. Conforte brings up, and which is rather famous (and hopefully the subject of its own post shortly), is the dictum:  ומצאתי כתוב שיש אומרים כי הגאונים נקרא כל אחד מהם בלשון גאון על שם שהיה יודע שם ס' מסכתות כמנין תיבת גאון (עמ' יח).   In a footnote of the Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors note that the Meiri makes the same point in his Seder Hakablah. In the introduction, they note (p. 31) that the KH probably saw this in the Meiri's  manuscript. However, from R. Conforte's discussion of the Meiri, it appears to me that he never saw the sefer (see p. 83). Furthermore, if he had seen this particular sefer of the Meiri (which, parenthetically, could have helped him much in this work), he would have quoted it as he quoted from his other sources. A more likely source where R. Conforte could have seen this phrase is from the Sefer HaTishbi (pg. 122), which he did see and from which he often quotes.    He includes a nice amount of information on the Rambam, including the famous legend regarding him being buried in Tevariah (Tiberias) and why the Ra'avad wrote a critical work on the Rambam. One of the things R. Conforte points out (as do many others) is that the Rambam studied under the Ri Migash (though the Chida comments that this is not chronologically possible).  What is less well known is what R Avraham Ben Ha-Rambam wrote about this:  ואבא מארי זצ"ל למרות היותו נמנה עליהם וקורא להם בחיבורו הגדול רבותי משום שאביו שהוא רבו הנו תלמידו של רבינו יוסף ז"ל  (המספיק לעובדי השם מהדורת נ' דנה עמ' 177-178).  KH mentions the famous legend about the death of R. Yehudah Halevi (already discussed previously here ). He also includes many interesting points about Rashi. Amongst them, he deals with a famous question that many ask: if Rashi died in middle of writing his work on Baba Basra, how is it that others say he died while working on Makos? R. Conforte's seemingly obvious answer is that Rashi must have been working on both at the same time (p. 56).  He includes an extensive list (almost fifteen pages) of all the various Rishonim quoted by Tosofos, including places where they quote from the Rambam and Ibn Ezra., further portraying the author 's tremendous bekiyut in Shas. In the new Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors actually provide the exact sources for all these pages.   The KH writes a very interesting possibility about the authorship of the Kol Bo: ושמעתי אומרים שאשה חכמה חברה ספר זה, אבל אין דעתי נוטה לזה, מפני שחכמת הספר ההוא אינו מדעת אשה אלא מדעת איש חכם גדול ורב מובהק, ומחמת ענוה יתירה שהיה בו לא רצה להזכרי ולפרסם שמו בתוך הספר. For more on this point, see Y. Levine in her introduction to Simchat Torah L'yad Rivkah Tiktiner, pg. 17 (as well as my Ben Keseh Lassur, pg. 143). Although the possibility is mentioned (and dismissed) by the KH that a woman wrote this work, A. Grossman's excellent book Chasidos U'morodos (pp. 282-289) does not mention it at all, though he provides a lengthy list of many of the learned woman in times of Rishonim (as an aside, I did not see a discussion of this list in the Sefer Toras Emechah, which deals with at length with the issur to teach Torah to women).   The KH has a lengthy discussion of the authorship of the Sefer Tanya, as it is well known that it appears to be a direct copy of the Shibbolei Ha-leket (pg. 76-77). In the latest volume of Yeshurun (20:696-697), R. Yakov Chaim Sofer goes so far as to discuss whether a similar point made by both the Shibbolei Ha-leket and the Sefer Tanya can "count" as two Rishonim or only as one. He proves at the end that the Eliyahu Rabah (in many places) counts them as two Rishonim. R. Conforte concludes that the author was most likely R. Yecheil, the author of the Malos Hamidos, and perhaps more famous as the sofer who copied the Yerushalmi Leiden. Throughout the past few centuries, the authorship of this sefer has been constantly aruged and discussed. Recently, Profesor Feintuch (Mesoros Venuscos B'talmud, pp. 65-76) proved conclusively that the KH is certainly correct (see also, I. Ta-Shma, Creativity and Tradition, pp. 77-79).   When discussing the place where the Reshis Chochma is buried, he mentions, as an aside, that the Matnes Kehunah is buried next to him (p. 146). Others disagree on this point, showing that the Matnes Kehunah was actually buried in Poland (see Zev Gris, Safrus V'hanhagos, pp. 41-42).   When talking about R. Shlomo Halevi, R. Conforte writes (p. 165):  וצוה בשעת פטירתו… שהספסל שהיה משים עליו הספרים כשהיה לומד, שיעשו ממנו ארון כדי לקוברו בו.     On this topic of burying one using the table on which one studied, see the many sources of R. S. Askenazi in his notes on the Kav Hayashar, and his updates in his Alpha Beta Kadmidta Deshmuel Zeria, pp. 487-93.   When discussing the Lechem Mishna, R. Conforte brings down an incredible story which he heard (pg. 153):  ושמעתי מפי זקנים כי נפטר בערב שבת במגפה ונקבר בין השמשות ובא השמש, והתחילו מצטערים לומר שחללו את השבת. וכשחזרו מבית הקברות לבתיהם זרחה השמש והאיר להם היום ושמחו על שלא חללו את השבת.   As D. Tamar notes (Areshet, Vol. 1, p. 474), the KH is the first historical sefer (p. 127) to attribute the Magid Mesahrim to R. Yosef Karo (contrary to what R. Y. Greenwald writes in his book R. Yosef Karo Ve'doro, pg. 192). Of course today we have much earlier and excellent proof as to the authenticity of this work; see, in partiuclar, the works of R. J.Z. Werblosky and M. Benayhu (in Yosef Becherei).   The KH also brings (p. 128) an incredible tidbit about the Beis Yosef which he heard from the Beis Yosef desendants:  ספר לנו קצת משבחי זקנו ז"ל, ובכלל שבחיו אמר לנו שהרב זקנו אמר בשעת פטירתו שזכה ללמד התלמוד כלו שלשה פעמים.    In the introduction to the Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors note that this sefer was also used to learn halacha, such as in the discussion of teaching torah to Karaties. They reference, for example, how the first source on this topic in the Sdei Chemed is the KH (Sdei Chemed, Klal Beis, Siman 34:13). While it is true that the Sdei Chemed does quote the KH, in reality he is only quoting Shut Mizrachi as brought in the KH. However, a Bar-Ilan search does show a few cases where the Shut Minchat Yitzcahk uses this sefer in his works. As far as Halachos of Klalei Ha'pesak, I am certain that KH could play a role.   In the recent ("controversial") book Reckless Rites Elliot Horowitz has a excellent extremely comprehensive chapter on local Purims throughout history. One of the Purims he discusses is the Purim of Cairo (pp. 286-89) he mentions that we have various sources showing it was observed over several centuries. Another source, not mentioned by Horowitz, is that a reference to this Purim can be found in the KH where he mentions that in his times it was also celebrated (p. 119).   One last point of great interest about R. Conforte is that although he lived in the time of Shabetai Tzvi, no mention of Shabetai Zvi can be found in the entire sefer. This point was made by B. Deblitski in his article in Mekabseil (pg. 606); however, the introduction of the Ahavat Sholom edition omits this very important and interesting point.        

Review of Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghimby Eliezer Brodt and Dan Rabinowitz
Yaakov S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim (Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book Scholars and their Annotations), Ramat Gan, 20052, 689 pp.

In 1996, Bar Ilan Press published Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim from Professor Yaakov S. Spiegel. Shortly thereafter, this edition sold out due to its popularity. A few years later Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Kitevah ve-haTakah (volume two) was published.  More recently, Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim was reprinted with over seventy five pages additional pages full of many important additions. In this new edition, Spiegel apologizes to the people who purchased the first edition of his work and would now have to buy the new one if they want the updates.  Spiegel offered that the requirement for a completely new edition rather than an addendum was out of his control.  Although the importance and quality of the book will be obvious shortly, it has not been reviewed or discussed properly in academic journals except for a short review on Hamayan (37, 3: 69-75). This post hopefully is a start in rectifying this omission.  This volume is the first of two (current) volumes discussing the History of the Jewish book – specifically the creation and alteration of the Jewish books.  That is, this volume covers annotating or editing texts.  Essentially, this work is divided into two parts, (Spiegel divides it into four parts) the first, discusses the permissibility of editing texts and the second discusses annotators and editors.  The first portion begins with the sugyah of editing texts in the time of the Mishana (sifrei torah) and moves into the topic of the prohibition of having a unedited sefer. These two chapters play an important role in the background of this topic of editing seforim.  Spiegel then moves into the era of the geonim and rishonim dealing at great length with there methods of editing or annotating texts. He discuses at great length the methods of Rabbenu Gershom, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam.  As is well known Rabbenu Tam prohibited the editing or annotating texts Spiegel discusses the complete background of Rabbenu Tam's opinion going through the myriad of sources when Rabbenu Tam's restriction applies. This discussion includes an analysis of Rabbenu Tam's work Sefer Hayashar and his famous disagreement with R Meshulem. Spiegel, as he does in each of the chapter, quotes all the previous sources on the topics and rechecks it all carefully and comes out with many new important conclusions. Spiegel then proceeds to deal with the different works of haghot in the times of rishonim and the nature of these works. Of particular interest is his sections on the Haghot Ashrei (pp. 183-90) and on the Ravad's comments on the Ramabam discussing if those comments are plain haghot or hasaghot (pp. 198-207).  The second section of the book surveys the story of Haghot u-Maghim from the beginning of the printing press, in approximately 1456, until 1840. He begins with chapters on the importance of the printing press (see also pp. 300-06) and moves in to the job of the annotators and editors and their methods. Dealing with topics such as, did Rabbenu Tam only speak to instances where one is erasing the text and substituting another but if one merely notes an alternative reading and preserves the original that is OK? Or, is it only applicable to manuscripts or does it apply to printed works as well?  The distinction being, in the case of a manuscript, that manuscript may be the only copy and, if one alters the text, the original is forever lost.  Additionally, Spiegel discusses at length the important question of whether one can correct texts based on logic or textual support. An interesting section is where he brings a bunch of sources that there is a special will from God that these mistakes happened and should remain (pg 262-269). There are chapters on the various 'editors' such as R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, R. Yoel Sirkes (Bach), Maharshal, Maharsha, Maharam, R. Jacob Emden, R. Y. Pick, Gra, Rashash, and a host of others.  For each one Spiegel discusses which version of the Talmud they were addressing their emendation and whether their emendations were based on manuscript evidence or their own determination that the text was corrupted. These questions are very important. For example, Spiegel notes that the Maharshal (p. 315) and Maharsha (p. 323) did use manuscript evidence many times whereas the Maharam (p. 325) did not use manuscript evidence frequently.   As to the Bach's emendations, Spiegel notes that weren't published until the 19th century, but the Bach's comments were addressed at earlier, different version of the Talmud.  Thus, at times, it is unclear what the Bach is changing.  Indeed, Spiegel shows how some commentaries have misunderstood the Bach's comments. Spiegel deals with at length what the Bach's goals were. Spiegel also shows that there were additions to the work after the Bach's death. As to the Bach's usage of manuscripts Spiegel shows it's still not proven that the Bach  used them as most of the changes can be found in Ein Yakkov.    Spiegel devotes a long chapter dealing with the Gra notes amongst the topics he discusses are what was the Gra's point in his comments, and to why there are contradictions in his notes on Shas to his other writings (pg 450). As to the question of whether the Gra used manuscripts Spiegel concludes that it appears that he did not [although he did visit libraries and saw old seforim (pg 454-457)]. Another whole section Spiegel devotes to is discussing Rabinowich's Dikdukei Soferim at length. This is especially important in that Dikdukei Soferim is a collection of variant readings of the Talmud.  As many great Rabbis of Rabinowich's time praised this work, this tends to show these Rabbis' position on emending texts. Spiegel shows the may people who used it and how those who did not use it could have benefited from availing themselves to Dikdukei Soferim. Spiegel deals with various theories why it was not used widely. He concludes that it appears that the Dikdukei Soferim is becoming more widespread. He even quotes recent sales of Dikdukei Soferim and notes how quick it sold out after being reprinted after being out of print for quite a while. Although a Otzar haChochma search comes up with well over 2000 hits in over a thousand seforim (of course not all this are good hits as there search engine is still limited although useful). It still does not appear that the Dikdukei Soferim is used widely in the main yeshiva circles. Perhaps that will change.
Spiegel deals extensively with the position of the Hazon Ish regarding manuscripts.  This topic, one which has gotten much attention (see, e.g. the Shnayer Z. Leiman, Kook, Moshe A. Bleich articles in Tradition, Hevlin in Meah Shearim as well as the articles in Beis HaVaad), is discussed in detail with the backdrop of all the nuances Spiegel raises throughout this work. Spiegel discusses the curious fact that the Chazon Ish himself did sometimes use the manuscripts of Gemarah when learning (p. 567 n.126). Spiegel concludes this section with a discussion on to more recent printings of the Shas such as the shas Vilna, Frankel and Oz veHadar. It appears that the methodology of both Shas Vilna (the original one) and Oz veHadar in deciding which texts to use etc are not clear. This is especial important to know with Oz veHadar what the methods that they use as they advertise as if they are making incredible important changes but one only wonders what they are ad on what basis they are made. The last section of the sefer is devoted to the various annotators and editors to various editions of the Ramabam including the editions of Bragadin and Justintine. Spiegel also deals with when were the divisions of halachot put into the Rambam (pp. 637-638).  He also deals at length with the Amsterdam edition and the comments of R. Sholom Leon and showing its influence on later editions. R. Sholom Leon authored other seforim  including Mesectas halacha Le moshe miSinia which was recently printed in a annotated edition including a nice introduction. The editor of this new edition was not aware of Spiegel discussion regarding R. Leon. Spiegel has an interesting discussion about a third work called Merkevet ha-Mishna by R. Leon that was not known to many people and thus people made a mistake attributing a source (pp. 648-49). It is amazing to see Spiegel's mastery of the Talmud and the sources with all its nuances throughout the book. The amount of classical seforim quoted and discussed is breathtaking many very rare works are quoted. Another point is the respect and tone he uses when he speaks about all the authors, a problem some have with many academic books. Another thing is he is not embarrassed to admit mistakes he made – he could have easily left out a specific footnote instead he writes it and explains that he made a mistake (see, e.g., p. 259).  From the above, it should be apparent that this book contains a wealth of information regarding the issue at hand, emending texts.  While that alone would be enough to recommend in the strongest terms this book, it must be noted that Spiegel, mainly in the many footnotes, covers an amazing amount of tangential topics.  Here are some examples:p.29 n. 8 Spiegel has a discussion about the sefer Kol Dodi quoted by Agnon (for more on this work see this post ).p. 41 n.12 sources regarding the custom of placing a possul sefer torah in the ark and whether this violates the prohibition of "al tiskon be-ohelkha" (one should not have uncorrected texts in their home).
p. 65 n.105 testimony from R. Yaakov Katz that Rav Hai Goan was a copyist. 
p. 75 n.153 noting that la"z the term used to indicate a translation should not contain the quote mark as it is not an abbreviation. 
p. 80 n.177 noting that Krochmel in his Moreh Nevukeh haZeman quotes the Mahritz Heyos only as "Hakham Eched."
p. 89 n.29 discusses R. Zevin's offhanded comment that the rishonim did not use "nusach aher."
p. 102 n.110 discusses "nusach Sefard" and whether it is more reliable.
p. 103 n.115 notes that although a statement from the Rosh (responsa, klal 20, no. 20) is used by multiple authors to show that Ashkenazik customs have a long history, those many authors ignored the other implication of the statement regarding the "nusach haTalmud shel beni Ashkenaz."
p. 105 n.123 who authored rashi on Horyois.p.105 n. 126 if one learnsa small daf is it considered a Complete daf.p.107 n.132 discussing the issue of when the Talmud records a pusuk differently than our Sifrei Torah.  p. 131 n.14 corrections of rashi that were later added into the printed edition of Shas.p. 142 n.55 when Rashi says Hachei Garseninon did he have a different version in front of him.
p. 170 n.64 the common meaning of the word "sefer" – as in yodeah sefer which sefer?
p. 218 n.7 Spiegel explains the melitza used by the printers of the 1494 Nevim to describe what they did.  The melitza includes the line "lower the high and raise the lower" (Ezekiel 21:31).  Dr. M. Glaser explained that in the early printing presses the letters would be set and they faced upwards, the printer would coat them in ink and then place the paper on top.  This is in contrast to how writing was done previously – from above. 
p. 230 n.67 citing examples of books where the Soncino press accused the Bomberg press of using (illegally?) Soncino editions.
p. 234 n.79 discussing the alleged apostasy of Yakkov ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu, the editor of the Mikrot Gedolot and other seminal texts.
p. 268 n.95 many sources that say the Havah Minah of the gemarah is true and important.  p. 318 -21  he discusses the methods of R Dovid Meubin a talmid of the Maharshal in annotating the Gemarah including many general rules that he mentions in his sefer.p. 329 -35 discuses the notes of the Levush on shas if they were really from him and dealing with R. Zechariah criticism on this.p. 426 n.18 discuses about Fogelman work on R. Menasha Milyah.p. 464 n.167 the Gra's opinion on the laining on Rosh Chodesh.p. 540 n.29 the plagiarism of the Tolodos Adam.p. 587 n.41 deals with a bit if Chaim Bloch was a forger.p. 652 n.185 Kapach opinon on the Teshuvos of Rambam to Chachemei Lunel.  In the academic world Spiegel work has gotten some attention for his discussion of the Chazon Ish and manuscripts.  Specifically, Benny Brown in his unpulished dissertation, The Hazon Ish Halakhic Philosophy, Theology and Social Policy As Expressed in His Prominent Later Rulings  (Hebrew) pp. 129-40, & Appendix pg 111- 113  deals with Spiegel's discussions with comments and additions. As has been noted here Sperber in his recent work Nesivos Pesikah uses Spiegel's discussions on this topic. And, in his doctorate on R. Betzalel Askenazi B. Toledano uses Spiegel's comments on R. Betzalel. Finally, others have used Spiegel's work, but as Spiegel notes only sometimes do they give Spiegel credit, (see here for more and see the introduction p. 13 and the notes therein and page 183 n.132).  Finally, although Spiegel's work is very comprehensive, there are some additions to some of the topics discussed in the sefer:   In the beginning of the book Spiegel has a chapter about אין כותבין ספרים תפלין ומזוזות במועד ואין מגיהין אות אחת אפילו בספר העזרה בספרים אחרים גורסים ספר עזראTo add to his long list of sources see Archaei Tanamim Vamorim (Rebbe of Rokeach) (Blau edition 2:666-67) and R. Meshulam Roth, Shut Kol Mevaser 2:2823. For the chapter (pp. 39-83) about המחזיק בספר מוטעה אל תשכן באהליך עולה see Efodi in his Maseh Efodie p. 18 in the introduction. For his chapter about Rabbenu Tam's methods of amending texts see also R. Yakov Shor (intro to Sefer haIttim p. vii) where he says he followed Rabbenu Tam's method in his edition of the Sefer haIttim and did make corrections on the actual text.  In chapter twelve where he discusses the Mesectos which are not learned (407-414) Spiegel mentions Nedarim as not being learnt (p. 407). See also the Merei in his Seder Hakabbalah (p. 128 Ofek Edition) where he writes דעו בעדות נאמנה שלא נשנית מסכת נדרים בישיבה זה ק' שנהOn Nedarim see also R. Reven Margolis, Mekharim beDarkei HaTalmud, pp. 81-84; R. Zevin, Sofrim Veseforim (geonim) pp. 46-48; the extensive discussion of R. Zev Rabanovitz in his Shaerei Toras Bavel (pp. 299-310). About Meschates Moed Koton see the important comment of R. Yissacar Tamar, Alei Tamar Moed Koton pg 312; and Yeshurun 20:702. Another mesectah not really learnt in the time of the Rishonim was Mesectas Avodah Zarah see; Professor Chaim Solovetick, Hayayin Byemei Habenyaim pp. 133-36. When discussing Meshtas Chagigah (pg 409) he brings the famous story from the Menorot haMeor that:מעשה בתלמיד אחד, שהיה מתייחד במקום אחד, והיה למד בו מסכת חגיגה. והיה מהדר ומהפך בה כמה פעמים, עד שלמד אותה היטב והיתה שגורה בפיו, ולא היה יודע מסכתא אחרת מן התלמוד זולתה, והיה שונה בה כל ימיו. כיון שנפטר מן העולם הזה, היה לבדו באותו בית שהיה לומד בו מסכת חגיגה, ולא היה שום אדם יודע פטירתו. מיד באה אשה אחת, ועמדה עליו, והרימה קולה בבכי ובמספד, ותרבה אנחתה וצעקתה, כאשה שהיא סופדת על בעלה, עד אשר נקבצו ההמון, ואמרה להם, ספדו לחסיד זה, וקברוהו בכבוד גדול, וכבדו את ארונו, ותזכו לחיי העולם הבא, שזה כבדני כל ימיו ולא הייתי עזובה ולא שכוחה בימיו. מיד נתקבצו כל הנשים וישבו עמה סביב למטתו ועשו עליו מספד גדול, והאנשים נתעסקו בתכריכיו ובכל צרכי קבורתו, וקברו אותו בכבוד גדול. ואותה אשה בוכה במר נפש וצועקת. אמרו לה, מה שמך. אמרה להם, חגיגה שמי. וכיון שנקבר אותו חסיד נעלמה מן העין אותה אשה. מיד ידעו שמסכת חגיגה היתה, שנראית להם בצורת אשה, ובאה בשעת פטירתו לספוד לו ולבכותו ולקברו בכבוד, מפני שהיה שונה בה ושוקד עליה ללמוד אותה. והלא דברים קל וחומר, ומה חסיד זה שלא למד אלא מסכתא אחת בלבד כך, הלמד תורה הרבה ותלמוד הרבה ומעמיד תלמידים הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה. It should be noted that there are eleven versions of the story see S. Askenazi notes to Kav Hayashar and updated to 15 versions in his Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria pp. 331-36. [These sources were not know to Y. Hacohen in his new annotated edition of the Magid Mesharim (p. 292). The Otzar Yad Chaim (pg 198) goes so far as to say that because of this story some say it's a segulah to learn this Mesechtah on a yarzheit. [See also Megedaim Chadashim introduction to Chaggiah.] In regard to The famous abrevation ענ"י which Mescetas were hard add R. Emden who writes on the Zohar which says עני איהו תמן בסימן עירובין נדה יבמות "בנה סוד על הלצה בעלמא, שהיתה מצויה בפי עוסקי התלמוד בישיבה, שלא יכלו לירד לעמקן של מסכתות הללו החמורות מאד, מחמת ריבוי החלוקות החדודות שבהן, הודו ולא בושו בעניות דעתם וקוצר יד השגתם, שלא יכלו להשוות כל הסוגיות השונות והסתירות הנמצאות בהן, לתרצם וליישבם כדרך שעשו בשאר כל המסכתות, חוץ מאלו קשות ולא מצאו כל אנשי חיל ידיהם. ונתנו בהן סימן על דרך הצחות, שלא יתפלא אדם, גם אם יאמר החכם למצוא פשר דבר לא יוכל, שכבר צווחו בהן קמאי דקמאי ולא אסקו בידייהו, אלא כמאן דמסיק תעלא מבי כרבא ועניא דקרי אבבא, היאומן שדברים כאלה יצא מפי תנא, אין צריך לומר מפי משה רבנו וא משאר נשמות מעולם הנעלם".  (מטפחת ספרים עמ' מו).  See also S. Askenazi, Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria pp. 422-24. For General sources on this topic of which Mesctas were learnt (partially based on Spiegel) see M. Breuer, Ohelehi Torah, pp. 90-94.  On page 280 Spiegel discusses the famous correction of a godal that the beracha of Pidyon Haben is אשר קרש עובר and not אשר קדש he brings some attribute it to R. Chaim Berlin. In the Zecher Daver, the Aderes has a fascinating chapter showing fifty seven examples how a kutzo shel yud makes a difference.  The Aderes cites his friend, R. Chaim Berlin, who told him this (p. 20). On this see also R. Chanoach Erentru in his Eiyunim Bdevrei Chazal Vleshonoim pp. 144-45; R. Yissacar Tamar, Alei Tamar Shekalim (p. 17) writes he does not believe it's a mistake.Additionally, although Spiegel cites to one of Prins' books discussing this issue, פרנס לדורו p. 460 a discussion regarding this topic appears on page 455 of the same book as well as the other book from Prins, פרנס לדורות on page 270.   On pp. 287-88 Spiegel discusses the Tana De be Eliyeahu with the perish Zikukin Denoroah Ubiyorin. But, see the strong words of the Radal against this pirish in his intro to Pirkei de Reb Eliezer p. 11 saying how this is what the Cherem against changing texts was referring to. See also A. Epstein (Kesavim vol 2, pp. 368-69); M. Ish Sholom, intro to his edition of Tana De be Eliyhu (pp. 4-7). Although Spiegel writes at the outset of his list of those who used Dikdukei Soferim that its not complete – the following can be added: R Sholom Albeck in his incredible sefer, Mishpachet Sofrim where he used the Dikdukei Soferim on almost every page (this sefer has a very warm haskamahs from the Maharsham and R Eleyahu Meisles amongst others). Another work well worth mentioning is the Shaerei Toras Bavel from R Zev Rabanovitz he also used Dikdukei Soferim extensively [in his work on Yerushalmi he also amends texts – but according to R Zevin in Sofrim Vseforim a bit to much]. Another person who used the Dikdukei Soferim was R. Greubart in Chavalim Beniymim (last page of volume 3, he also mentions seeing a shas from 600 hundred years ago in Chicago). Another person who used it was R. Yeruchem Leiner in his Tifres Yeruchem (pp. 115, 189). Another is R. Elyashiv in his teshuvot (1: p. 478) and in his work on Sotah he uses the Munich ed. in the Talmud HaYisraeli edition (p. 234). A Bar Ilan search shows that others not included in Spiegel list use or used it such as Beis Mordechaei and Shevet haLevei (four times), the latter being very interesting as he is close to the camp of Chazon Ishnicks. Bar Ilan search also shows that some of the Gedolim which Spiegel shows used it used it even more than he shows such as R Zodok and the Or Someach.   In Spiegel's discussion of the Adres using Dikdukei Soferim Spiegel does not have too many sources (p. 491). To add to this: first in Knesses haGedolaih the Adres uses it in at least two places – these two pieces are now printed in back of his Har haMorieah printed by Ahavat Sholom pp. 253 and 254. In his sefer Megilat Simanim which explains all the Simanim in Shas he used the Dikdukei Soferim numerous times (see index) this work was printed after Spiegel printed his sefer. In his Tefilah leDovid (Ahavat Sholom edtion pp. 8-9,23, 25, 121, 125, 137) (which is the best edition of thos work) we see he was involved in switching texts some times based on manuscripts of Rishonim.  On page 500 Spiegel leaves one thinking that A. Epstein was not pro the Dikdukei Soferim, which is not true at all (see Epstein's Kesavim vol 2  p. 354) where he criticizes Halevei for בכל ספרו לא נמצא זכר החיבור הנחמד דקדוקי סופרים, שנאספו ובאו בו נוסחאות כתבי יד שונים וספרים עתיקים. (see also pgs 83,51,357).  Another very interesting passage in regarding Dikdukei Soferim was written by A. Berliner:בדרכי לברלין השתמשתי בשעת הכושר לבקר במינכן את ידידי המלומד רבינוביץ ולהציץ למעבדתו הרחונית בה נעשית היצירה הגדולה דקדוקי סופרים שהכרך הששי מאותו הספר הענקי יצא בזמן האחרון. כאן השתוממתי והתפעלתי מאוסף כתבי היד ודפוסים יקרי המציאות, המשמשים יסוד לרבינוביץ בעבודתו. ובאמת ניתן לומר, שאותו מפעל גדול ונהדר, להוציא את התלמוד הוצאת ביקורתית על יסוד כתבי היד ואינקונאבלים הוא מפעל לאומי, הראוי לתמיכה מצד כל אלה, שיש להם הבנה למדעי היהדות ולב פתוח ועד לקידומם. איני יודע חתימה נאה לפרשת מסעי מאשר להביע את משאלתי מי יתן ואותו מפעל גדול יוכתר בהשלמה וסיום מוצלחים". (ששה חדשים באיטליה עמ' עב). On page 426 Spiegel deal with the reliability of M. Fogelman (Plungin) see the interesting piece by A. Korman in Musagim Behalcha p. 203. See also the recent article from D. Kamentsky in Yeshurun vol 20.  On pages 428-29 Spiegel deals a little with the Kol Hatohar.  It should be added the recently printed work Olam Nistar Bemaddei Hazman by R.Shucat pp. 262-91 (see also this post discussing Shucat's work generally.)   To the disscusion of Chazon Ish and manuscripts see also Maseh ish 1:93; 2:72, 218; 3:92  Finally to add to Spiegel's sources on pages 555, 569 regarding the yarhzeit of Yehoshua bin Nun. R. Hamburger, in his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz (3:262) points to one such source that Lag b'omer is the yarzeit. Additionally, in the Megillas Ta'anis, the last section, there's a section called Megilas Taanis Basra. In many versions of this text, the death of R' Yehoshua bin Nun is on Lag b'omer. Professor Shulamis Elitzur, in a recent incredible book, Lama Tzamnu, deals with this at great length and brings many early sources from ancient piyutim which verify this (pp. 18, 26, 34, 39, 66, 120, 126, 172). 

Pini Dunner B.A (Hons), formerly rabbi of London's Saatchi Synagogue, is an avid collector of polemical and controversial Hebraica, with a very large, diverse private collection of such material. Many items in his collection are unknown and unrecorded, and relate to long forgotten, obscure controversies.
This is Pini Dunner's third post at the Seforim blog. His first post, "Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931," is available here; his second post, "Unknown Picture of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, c.1930s," is available here.
For background on the controversy over Corfu etrogim, see Yosef Salomon, "The Controversies Regarding the Corfu and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim 1875-1891," Zion 65.1 (2000): 75-106; Yosef Salomon, "The Controversy Regarding the Corfu Etrogim and its Historical Significance," AJS Review 25 (2000-2001): 1-25; Yitzhak Refael, "Corfu Etrogim and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim," Sheragi 2 (1985), 84-90; Dan Porat, "The Controversy over Israeli Etrogim from 1875-1889," (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993); H. Hamel, "R. Yosef Zehariah Stern's Position in the Corfu Etrogim Controversy," in Sefer Refael (Jerusalem, 2000), 242-251. For a brief discussion about the broadsides authored by R. Gershon Henoch Leiner and his son R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin that were posted throughout Poland, see Pearl Preschel, "The Jews of Corfu," (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1984), 111-112, 113-114, 159.
Regarding the Russian text at the bottom of the broadside, the following is a translation that was obligatory to appear on all non-Russian books:
Condemnation by M.I.Leiner of those rabbis, which, as the revenge for the dwellers of the Greek islands for the disturbances on the island of Corfu, prohibited the paradise apples originating from those islands for using them in the religious ceremony of the holiday of Sukkot.
Included is a protest letter by the rabbi of Corfu about the matter.
—————————
Permitted by the censorship, Warsaw, 15 July 1891 — printing of M.I. Galter Nalevki [St.] 23.
Handbill Defending the Use of the Corfu Etrogim authored by R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin  published in Izbica, July 1891
This broadside contains a vigourous and impassioned defence of the practice of using etrogim from Corfu in preference to those from Eretz Yisrael. For centuries the most prized etrogim used by Jews of all communities were those grown in Corfu, and the etrog industry on the island was a mainstay of the local economy. It was said that the etrogim grown in Corfu traced their origins to those used during the second temple period, and were therefore of the most reliable pedigree. The untainted pedigree of an etrog is of primary importance, and as a result Corfu etrogim were highly sought after, making them expensive. Furthermore, the owners of the orchards – many of them non-Jews – fiercely guarded their monopolies, and were extremely careful that their etrogim were of unimpeachable pedigree.
This broadside was issued as a result of the drift away from using etrogim grown on the island of Corfu in the late nineteenth century. Initially this began with a ban on their use that was issued c.1875 and that had its roots in the growing suspicion that Corfu etrogim were no longer reliable in their pedigree and that growers had secretly begun grafting them with other citrus fruits to boost the numbers of fruit that were fit for use, and in addition would be outstanding in their appearance, boosting their value.
Then in 1891, the year of this broadside, the ban against Corfu etrogim was strengthened as a result of the terrible anti-semitism on the island that had led to a vicious blood libel. Jewish communities formerly loyal to Corfu etrogim switched their allegiances to the ever expanding etrogim market of Eretz Yisrael and it was this that R. Leiner was trying to prevent. R. Leiner (1877-1929) was the scion of the Izbica/Radzyn dynasty and in this broadside he quotes his recently departed father, R. Gershon Henoch (1839-1891), the famous 'Baal ha-Techeilet', as saying that there were no better and more kosher etrogim than those that grew in Corfu. He added that those grown in Eretz Yisrael were probably unfit for use and, furthermore, the excuse that they provided income for poor farmers there was utterly inappropriate in light of their unfitness. He added that the chief rabbi of Corfu, R. Elisha mi-Pano, had written to him to say that the ban effected against Corfu etrogim (the annual market for etrogim was of major economic significance to the small island) as a result of the blood libel was making matters worse for the Jews of Corfu.
Despite attemps by R. Leiner and other advocates of Corfu etrogim, the Corfu etrog business went into terminal decline. By the early twentieth century the rival industry in Eretz Yisrael had grabbed the overwhelming majority of the etrogim market, and with the upheaval of the two world wars, and following the creation of the State of Israel, Corfu etrogim disappeared completely from the scene.
Recently, I understand, there has been some effort to revive the fortunes of the Corfu etrog. It would seem that an emissary of R. David Twersky of New Square annually acquires etrogim from Corfu for R. Twersky to use on sukkot. No doubt this action is motivated by R. Twersky's well-known desire to strictly follow the customs of his illustrious forebears who, in the years when the etrogim controversy raged, were devotees of Corfu etrogim over their Eretz Yisrael counterparts. Nevertheless, as any etrog grower will tell you, once an etrog orchard has been abandoned, any fruit that emerge from it in the years that follow, especially if many years pass, no longer have a chezkat kashrut, and more than likely they are murkavim. It would be interesting to know if R. Twersky makes a bracha on these questionable etrogim, or if he first uses an etrog of reliable pedigree and then switches to the murkav simply for sentimental purposes.